After the flurry of yesterday, here are a couple of further thoughts on the spending review. I wrote three pieces on it yesterday – a fairly straightforward version rounding up arts and museums cuts; a joint DCMS piece with Owen Gibson; and a commentary on arts and museums (the latter two published in our spending review supplement, which I commend to you not least because it contains the mightiest, brightest pie-chart you will ever see). We also created an open thread to round up further reaction to the cuts and would love you to contribute. I'm abashed to note that (although it was certainly reported on the web) I don't see a reference in print to the English Heritage cut of 32%, so I'll note it again for the record.

So: what a sleight of hand, eh: George Osborne announcing 15% arts cuts when in fact the budget of Arts Council England, since time immemorial regarded as "the arts budget", has in fact been cut by 30%. How did the Government get away with it? In fact the 15% refers to the maximum cut that culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has asked Arts Council England to pass on to "front-line" arts organisations.

"Front line". Sounds good, doesn't it? But in fact it's a deeply dubious phrase. What is the front line in arts and culture? What is not front line? Can the front line succeed, in fact, without a "back room" (or whatever the front line's opposite is)?

This is what Ed Vaizey, the culture minister, said at yesterday's briefing in the House of Commons. "What I call the front line has been protected... RFOs is the easiest way of defining the front line."

He's talking about Regularly Funded Organisations - the portfolio of 800-odd organisations supported with grant-in-aid by Arts Council England. But what about the stuff that ACE funds outwith the RFO structure? That includes Manchester international festival; NT Live; all broadcasting partnerships; national touring schemes. Not front line? Hardly.

My second observation is that ACE – not an organisation of which I have always been a great admirer – is now in an extremely difficult position. It is told by DCMS it must cut its costs in half. It has just completed an organisational review in which it cut itself by 20%. It will therefore end up having cut itself by 70% over five years. A complete evisceration. I'm not saying there wasn't a time when ACE was bloated and bureaucratic; and I'm certainly not saying ACE hasn't made some fabulously blunderous decisions. But this means that ACE will struggle to do any kind of job at all. Any support functions it had – helping arts organisations fundraise, or work on audience development, or anything of that nature – will now likely pass away. It is also put in an appalling position. By announcing 15% cuts to this undefinable and entirely spurious "front line" but asking ACE to soak up a 30% overall cut, the Government will also be requiring ACE to soak up 30%'s worth of ire and discord when the cuts hit.

Finally, what on what basis is this 15% figure binding? In the briefing yesterday, questions were asked about the arm's length principle, which enshrines the idea that ACE makes its own decisions, protecting the arts from direct political influence and interference.

Vaizey said: "It depends on whether you think policy is made at arm's length or decisions on which organisations are to be funded happens at arm's length... My conception of the arm's length principle is that it exists for deciding which bodies are funded." He added: "We've made it clear that it's a condition of their settlement that ACE limits cuts to the overall RFO budget to 15%; but if they choose not to fund certain organisations that is their decision."

What if, someone asked, they didn't comply with this "condition"? Vaizey laughed. "Life would get very interesting," he said.

It's not at all clear to me whether the Government has the right to set this as a "condition"; and it is not at all clear to me whether it would have the power to enforce sanctions if ACE doesn't comply. We will see.